NEW DELHI: Supreme Court-based lawyer Saurabh Mishra, who specializes in sports law and represents Indian athletes in doping-related cases at NADA and CAS, gave a point-by-point explanation of the allegations leveled against Vinesh Phoghat by the federation. “This notice raises many layered legal issues that deserve careful scrutiny,” Mishra told TOI.On the spotting allegation: “The ITA itself has recorded that Ms. Phogat’s conduct did not rise beyond negligence. Under Article 2.4 of the WADA Code, a spotting failure requires a determination of fault, and the degree of fault directly determines the sanction. The extent of the sanction is available to the adjudicating body. This finding by the ITA is not merely reductive – it is critically important.”
Allegation on Article 5.7 Retirement and Return to Competition: “This is a strict, non-delegable personal liability. However, the key legal question is whether Ms Phogat ever formally retired within the meaning of Article 5.7 before? The relevant accommodation obligations under the Registered Testing Pool (RTP) continue without interruption.”On the dual weight category charge arising out of the March 2024 selection trials: “The charge raises an important due process question – namely, whether a player can be held solely responsible for a procedural irregularity authorized and permitted by the Ad Hoc Committee itself on the day. Jurisprudence“On the allegation of Paris 2024 ineligibility: The CAS Ad Hoc Division has already made a final reasonable award in CAS OG 24/17. The extent to which a national federation can impose additional disciplinary consequences for conduct already decided by the highest tribunal of the sport is a legally contested question that implicates principles akin to double jeopardy in sports law.“Above all, Ms. Phogat’s right to a fair hearing before the WFI Disciplinary Committee, in which all materials are relied upon and representation of her choice, is inviolable both under the principles of natural justice and the WFI Constitution itself.”
